# Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 27, 2012, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236 "2012-05-27T12:28:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 29
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/561 "2012-06-14T12:11:01Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Those who deny climate change and those who deny the importance of genetic differences are very similar. There’s at least one big difference- one is accepted by the scientific community, one is not. The achievement gap exists. You have failed, miserably, at providing evidence that your explanation is the best one for it. Your use of “race” with regards to genetics doesn’t make sense (how can two “black” populations be the same race when one is closer to Eurasians, genetically, then to the other “black” population?) and you have no genetic data. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/562 "2012-06-14T13:52:25Z")
Will you EVER answer the question of how much schooling you have? Prediction: will dodge or ignore. Right, ignore. Why would you expect us to credit your opinion on any of this when you are clearly not educated in the basics necessary to even begin to ponder these questions with any hope of insight?:dubious: ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/563 "2012-06-14T14:31:46Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people. > [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html) As a political scientist would tell you it does remain a problem for anyone that doubles down and never criticizes the company they keep. Besides where I’m coming from is not just by “guilt by association” I already investigated that they already followed anti-scientific ideals before joining together, at its root what they do have in common is the old fashioned anti-intellectualism of American conservatism. As someone that has also studied logic what you are doing here is just an attempt at using a good tool as a toy to ignore the evidence that was there before any association took place. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/564 "2012-06-14T17:24:59Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > Will you EVER answer the question of how much schooling you have? > Prediction: will dodge or ignore. > > Right, ignore. Why would you expect us to credit your opinion on any of this when you are clearly not educated in the basics necessary to even begin to ponder these questions with any hope of insight?:dubious: Anyone on the internet can claim any identity, and any number of achievements. I am obviously well informed, articulate, and courteous. That is all that matters. Just out of curiosity. How much education do you have? If you have a lot, why is it so difficult for you to explain the durability of racial differences? ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/565 "2012-06-14T17:29:06Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As someone that has also studied logic what you are doing here is just an attempt at using a good tool as a toy to ignore the evidence that was there before any association took place. Once again I ask: where is the evidence of intrinsic racial equality? Evidence of intrinsic racial inequality is everywhere. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/566 "2012-06-14T17:35:49Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Anyone on the internet can claim any identity, and any number of achievements. I am obviously well informed, articulate, and courteous. That is all that matters. > > Just out of curiosity. How much education do you have? If you have a lot, why is it so difficult for you to explain the durability of racial differences? Nope, as you mention, in the internet anyone can claim anything, but the fact remains that experts in the matter do not agree with your conclusions, and it matches with the opinion of the experts that are here, BTW their expertise is deduced for their past posts and recognized sources of information, you only have McExperts, Blogessors to support you and misinterpreted experts that do not agree with your conclusions. Once again, if there is overwhelming evidence for your conclusions it should be easy to point out at active experts that approve of your solutions, in reality the evidence so far only sows the same old same old non experts that do not demonstrate what you are claiming. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/567 "2012-06-14T17:38:06Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Once again I ask: where is the evidence of intrinsic racial equality? > > Evidence of intrinsic racial inequality is everywhere. Straw man, **and used repeatedly by you** , this demonstrates that indeed you are only abusing that logic site, you are just using as a toy because you only apply it to others and not yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/568 "2012-06-14T17:55:22Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > I am obviously **well informed** , articulate, and courteous. (emphasis mine) This is the part where somebody spits their coffee all over the camera, isn’t it ? ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/569 "2012-06-14T18:10:12Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Straw man, **and used repeatedly by you** , this demonstrates that indeed you are only abusing that logic site, you are just using as a toy because you only apply it to others and not yourself. A straw man argument is where one distorts the argument of one’s opponent. I am only asking a simple question: where is the evidence of intrinsic racial equality? Evidence could consist of declines in black crime and illegitimacy immediately following the civil rights legislation passed during the 1960s, and the declaration of the War on Poverty. Evidence could also consist of proof that No Child Left behind is succeeding. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/570 "2012-06-14T18:13:59Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, as you mention, in the internet anyone can claim anything, but the fact remains that experts in the matter do not agree with your conclusions, and it matches with the opinion of the experts that are here, BTW their expertise is deduced for their past posts and recognized sources of information, you only have McExperts, Blogessors to support you and misinterpreted experts that do not agree with your conclusions. > > Once again, if there is overwhelming evidence for your conclusions it should be easy to point out at active experts that approve of your solutions, in reality the evidence so far only sows the same old same old non experts that do not demonstrate what you are claiming. If my conclusions are mistaken one should be able to point out how they are mistaken without claiming an impressive academic background, which would be easy to claim and difficult to prove. Why is it that racial differences in average intelligence, crime, and illegitimacy are so durable? I keep asking that question, and not getting an answer. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/571 "2012-06-14T18:23:12Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Anyone on the internet can claim any identity, and any number of achievements. I am obviously well informed, articulate, and courteous. That is all that matters. > > Just out of curiosity. How much education do you have? If you have a lot, why is it so difficult for you to explain the durability of racial differences? Ah, Dodge. a twofer. I already answered that question, waaay upthread. I already stipulated I’d give you the benefit of the doubt. Have some integrity, answer the question. You are NOT obviously well informed, that’s what I’m trying to ascertain. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Who\_me\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/958977/32.png) [@Who\_me\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Who_me_1)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/572 "2012-06-14T18:27:47Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > I am only asking a simple question: where is the evidence of intrinsic racial equality? Evidence could consist of declines in black crime and illegitimacy immediately following the civil rights legislation passed during the 1960s, and the declaration of the War on Poverty. Evidence could also consist of proof that No Child Left behind is succeeding. Since none of those questions have any bearing on IQ or genetics, why are they relevant? ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/573 "2012-06-14T18:30:23Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Why is it that racial differences in average intelligence, crime, and illegitimacy are so durable? I keep asking that question, and not getting an answer. You’ve gotten plenty of potential answers and ignored or rejected them. For example, you haven’t explained why we can safely ignore social/economic factors in such analyses and go straight to genetics (not even just biology but full-on genetics, which is an incredibly common mistake when considering even biological factors). You’ve also been given examples, which you’ve ignored, in the UK and Germany, if not the US, where “black” children don’t show measurable test score differences from white children. You’ve also been shown where your own cites disagree with you, yet claim those are due to “political correctness” or some other excuse. It’s a little late to claim you’re not getting answers. You’ve gotten answers literally hundreds of times now but choose to ignore and/or reject them. Or have you forgotten that all the responses you’ve gotten so far are on display for everybody to see? ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/574 "2012-06-14T18:34:24Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Once again I ask: where is the evidence of intrinsic racial equality? > > Evidence of intrinsic racial inequality is everywhere. Speaking purely from a scientific standpoint, this is one of the most fundamental flaws in your approach. You are attempting to prove an hypothesis - namely, that racial differences in IQ are genetically based. If you were a real scientist, you would know that that means the burden of proof is on YOU. When setting up a project, a scientist proposes a hypothesis. The alternative, or null hypothesis, is the default conclusion to which you return if your efforts to prove your hypothesis fail. You then do your experiment and do statistical analysis to see if you have acquired enough evidence to allow you to reject the null hypothesis and accept your proposed hypothesis. In your situation, the null hypothesis is the flip side of the coin: “racial differences in IQ are not genetically based.” Now, there are rules about this. The null hypothesis is ALWAYS the one that maintains the status quo. This is deliberate, as it means that we do not accept any new idea unless and until sufficient evidence has been obtained to prove (within a reasonable amount of doubt) that it is true. You are attempting to do things in the reverse. You have proposed a hypothesis and then declared that if we cannot prove it wrong, then by default, it must be true. This is completely incorrect, as you are essentially attempting to establish truth by default rather than evidence. A real scientist will, on his own, think of as many obstacles and objections to his ideas himself, and design his experiments to overcome them. We challenge our own research as hard as we possibly can before presenting it to anyone else, because if we don’t, someone else surely will. If I wrote a paper saying that “cohesin holds homologous chromosomes together. Prove to me that it doesn’t!”, I would rightly be laughed out of the field. So, again. YOU are attempting to convince US, not the other way around. YOU are attempting to show that the status quo, the conventional wisdom, and the general view of your peers is incorrect. Therefore, the burden of proof is on YOU. YOU need to provide the evidence. YOU need to answer criticisms. YOU need to be rigorous. Not us. The conservative approach is to reject your proposals unless and until you have provided enough evidence to show conclusively that it is true, and that no other explanation can possibly be valid. This has nothing to do with the offensiveness of your ideas. It’s simply good science, and the same approach is applied to every single scientist out there. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/575 "2012-06-14T18:40:11Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, as you mention, in the internet anyone can claim anything, but the fact remains that experts in the matter do not agree with your conclusions, and it matches with the opinion of the experts that are here, BTW their expertise is deduced for their past posts and recognized sources of information, you only have McExperts, Blogessors to support you and misinterpreted experts that do not agree with your conclusions. > > Once again, if there is overwhelming evidence for your conclusions it should be easy to point out at active experts that approve of your solutions, in reality the evidence so far only sows the same old same old non experts that do not demonstrate what you are claiming. Not to mention that he rather selectively uses the “McExperts”. Rushton is a brilliant scientist when he claims that blacks are stupid, but when Rushton uses the same studies and data to claim that whites have small penises Rushton is a quack. Were he intellectually consistent, he’d be arguing that whites are mentally superior but anatomically inferior to blacks, but for some strange reason, half of Rushton’s findings make him insecure. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/576 "2012-06-15T01:39:28Z")
> [@New Deal Democrat](#): > > His point is that they are highly sexed, and sexually irresponsible. Care to define sexual irresponsibility? Last I heard, sexual strategies increasing the chances of having a greater number of offspring that procreate are sexually responsible. > [@New Deal Democrat](#): > > Now the Chinese are developing the ability to build many consumer items as good as comparable items built in the United States, but cheaper. You do realise this isn’t the result of any particular guile on the part of the Chinese proletariat, but in fact the lack of scruples of US capitalists? The US capitalist extracts greater surplus value by increasing worker hours and reducing worker wages, while contributing to China’s emissions quota. > [@MrDibble](#): > > pinnacle I know the usage was informal, but Lewontin criticises some of the metaphors used in evolutionary biology [here](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we4ZzjKxFHM). > [@Kobal2](#): > > Keanu Reeves does that for a living Harsh, [considering](http://www.urlesque.com/2010/06/07/sad-keanu-reeves-the-latest-image-meme/). > [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > If it were true, everyone would have a low IQ in Kindergarten and dramatically higher IQs after finishing high school or college. I’m guessing when Rhaegar said “education level”, they meant that of two individuals of the same age, completing tertiary education would be a good predictor of a high IQ and failing to complete secondary education would be a good predictor of a low IQ, while they may not adequately represent _g_ or innate intelligence due to extraneous variables. > [@tomndebb](#): > > that is like saying that food on high branches “breeds” long necks on giraffes. It seems like a dispositional version of social learning theory. Individuals influence their environments, modifications in environment alter individual behaviour… Except that black individuals are predisposed to destroy their environments or something like that. > [@New Deal Democrat](#): > > As we know Chinese excel intellectually wherever they move to. [Not really, no](http://www.ituc-csi.org/saudi-arabia-bans-trade-unions-and.html?lang=en). Besides, political affiliation and religion are far more heritable than intelligence. Why are we not aspiring to emulate Maoism? Why is one’s religion not more likely to be predisposed than one’s aptitude for religious tests? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/577 "2012-06-15T06:19:50Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > I know the usage was informal, but Lewontin criticises some of the metaphors used in evolutionary biology [here](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we4ZzjKxFHM). It was worse than informal - it was deliberately sarcastic. I’m so ashamed. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/578 "2012-06-19T08:35:05Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > Speaking purely from a scientific standpoint, this is one of the most fundamental flaws in your approach. You are attempting to prove an hypothesis - namely, that racial differences in IQ are genetically based. If you were a real scientist, you would know that that means the burden of proof is on YOU. When setting up a project, a scientist proposes a hypothesis. The alternative, or null hypothesis, is the default conclusion to which you return if your efforts to prove your hypothesis fail. You then do your experiment and do statistical analysis to see if you have acquired enough evidence to allow you to reject the null hypothesis and accept your proposed hypothesis. > > In your situation, the null hypothesis is the flip side of the coin: “racial differences in IQ are not genetically based.” Now, there are rules about this. The null hypothesis is ALWAYS the one that maintains the status quo. This is deliberate, as it means that we do not accept any new idea unless and until sufficient evidence has been obtained to prove (within a reasonable amount of doubt) that it is true. > > You are attempting to do things in the reverse. You have proposed a hypothesis and then declared that if we cannot prove it wrong, then by default, it must be true. This is completely incorrect, as you are essentially attempting to establish truth by default rather than evidence. A real scientist will, on his own, think of as many obstacles and objections to his ideas himself, and design his experiments to overcome them. We challenge our own research as hard as we possibly can before presenting it to anyone else, because if we don’t, someone else surely will. If I wrote a paper saying that “cohesin holds homologous chromosomes together. Prove to me that it doesn’t!”, I would rightly be laughed out of the field. > > So, again. YOU are attempting to convince US, not the other way around. YOU are attempting to show that the status quo, the conventional wisdom, and the general view of your peers is incorrect. Therefore, the burden of proof is on YOU. YOU need to provide the evidence. YOU need to answer criticisms. YOU need to be rigorous. Not us. The conservative approach is to reject your proposals unless and until you have provided enough evidence to show conclusively that it is true, and that no other explanation can possibly be valid. This has nothing to do with the offensiveness of your ideas. It’s simply good science, and the same approach is applied to every single scientist out there. Here is an example of someone who has been trying for months to disprove the hereditarian (genetic) hypothesis. He has looked at every environmental explanation. At least in terms of the US results. I don’t know how he finds the time - it is a [lengthy review](http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/the-facts-that-need-to-be-explained/). His conclusion: > [@](#): > > (1) Given the within group heritabilities, the a prior probability that a random sub-populational difference of this magnitude is more genetic than not, is over 50%. > > (2) The data is consistent with a genetic hypothesis. I have not been able to find one inconsistent piece of evidence. And I can confidently say that I have looked at every counter-argument rendered. > > (3) The data is not obviously consistent with any known environmental hypothesis. And making it consistent requires numerous ad hoc additions (e.g., “cultural g,” as discussed.) (note this is only in relation to gaps in the US - he is still reviewing data from overseas). It’s quite technical - doubt many will read the whole thing. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/579 "2012-06-19T08:43:48Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Gee, the tests showed a basic difference on the those tests that rely on the imaginary _g_. (So we are not even talking about a universal consensus, to begin with, but only among those psychometricists who happen to believe in _g_.) > > Not persuasive. Classic, a Task Force created by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association isn’t good enough evidence for you? Perhaps you could start telling us what psychometricians you are relying on? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236/580 "2012-06-19T11:16:49Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Classic, a Task Force created by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association isn’t good enough evidence for you? Perhaps you could start telling us what psychometricians you are relying on? When I see evidence that psychometry is not simply a way for a group of college professors to get grants, I will give it some thought. So far, all the evidence that I have seen is based on what I consider false reasoning that is, itself, simply begging the question. I do not doubt that we can invent tests that measure “IQ,” meaning we can devise a test to group people according to the way that they answer those tests, but I have seen nothing that indicates that taking a couple of examples of demonstrated intellignce and graphing them actually addresses the entire issue of more complex issue of intelligence. It is an alluring field of study–and one that can be lucrative–but its foundation is not established as reality. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-differences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic/623236.md?page=30)